[Advaita-l] Taittiriya Upanishad question
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Sat Apr 9 14:03:53 CDT 2011
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Br. Pranipata Chaitanya <
pranipata at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hari Om Shri Subrahmanianji, Pranaams!
> Instead of appreciating the vairAgya of the disciple which is the prakrta
> viShaya of this section of upaniShad, you are taking it to mean jnAni's
> ability to create.....
I think you have missed the point of discussion in this thread. Since it is
centered on Jnani's bhoga in this/other world, etc., references from other
upanishads were given. The topic is not about Vairagya of a mumukshu.
There is no disagreement about the fact that those mantras in the Katha Up.
are vairagya-centric. I have dealt with this aspect extensively in the
Kathopanishad series in the Advaita Academy. The present reference was
purely to show scriptural basis for the fact that a Jnani can create
bhoga-padArthas for 'someone else' which Shankara referred to in the Mundaka
> jnAni or deva or yama or Ishvara cannot make a vairAgI yield to the
There is no dispute about this at all. And as I have said above this is not
the topic discussed in this thread.
> Had the intention of the shruti is to prove the capacity of jnAni in yama
> to create for himself/others, the story would have proceeded in the style of
> naciketA returning with goodies created by yama.
True. The intention of the Shruti is not to project this aspect as I have
stated above. I quoted this mantra and the Mundaka mantra *with the Bhashya
* for a different purpose which too cannot be disproved by anyone.
> Nor that AcAryaji brought in words of yama while the mantra does not say
> that-- 'aham devaH satya-sa~NkalpaH' which was in the context of upaniShad
> using words 'yati manyase' which gives scope of a doubt wanting a
As per the bhashyam '*yadi manyase*' here means: *if you consider* any other
object/s of enjoyment equal/similar to what has been already offered, you
can go ahead asking those too.
If Shankara's comment 'satyasankalpo hi aham devaH' were to have appeared
immediately after the bhashyam for the above 'yadi manyase', then what you
have stated could have been admissible. But in the bhashyam, after saying:
एतत्तुल्यं ....अन्यमपि *यदि मन्यसे *वरं तमपि वृणीष्व Shankara says किं च ...
and makes the 'vittam, chirajIvikAm, etc.' *distinct* from the choice of
things that could come under 'yadi manyase'. And the comment
'satyasankalpo hi aham devaH' comes *at the end *of the bhashyam after the
assurances: 'divyAnaam ca maanuShANAm kAmAnAm tvAm kAmArham karomi'. It is
for this claim made by Yama, *'karomi'*, that Shankara adds that comment
'satyasankalpo...'. So, I think this cannot be linked to 'yadi manyase'
appearing at the beginning which Shankara clearly separates from the rest of
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list